Troy Rollo <wine at troy.rollo.name> writes:
> It now occurs to me that this fix not entirely right either - or at least it
> doesn't avoid creating another bug, since Sleep(INFINITE) is valid, and Sleep
> goes through WaitForMultipleObjectsEx.
>> However, since WaitForMultipleObjectsEx(0, NULL, FALSE, INFINITE, FALSE)
> returns an error on Win2k, this use of WaitForMultipleObjectsEx to implement
> Sleep must be wrong.
You are right, our implementation of Sleep is broken. I'll fix that.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com